InternetNews.com states: "Microsoft (or a really smart ISV) should build a full application manager for Windows, similar to what most Linux distributions do today." Most Windows applications come with their own distinctive updating mechanism (much like Mac OS X), instead of having a centralised updating location like most Linux distributions offer. While it certainly wouldn't be harmful for Windows to gain such a feature - the question remains: isn't it time we rethink program installation and management altogether?

It's the task of the distribution makers to make sure the application runs on their specific ditribution. If the standard package won't run, those distro makers have to compile and package it themselves.

which is why, eg. the abiword developers are saying that it is easier to deploy on Windows than Linux and users constantly complain because they are using the old version.

So you are hurting developers and users.

So - please stop spreading the stupid myth the program writers have to supply their program for all tastes of Linux distributions. This is simply not the case...

Okay?

Yes, they have if they want to make it easy for their users. Just look at skype, flash, pidgin etc. and tell me they have a single version.

Pidgin:

Windows
Fedora
CentOS / RHEL
MacOSX

Notice two different linux versions.

Skype:

11 (!) different Linux versions.

Only Linux users would say this is an advantage!

Stop spreading the myth you can always get the latest version from your distro and that developers don't have to do a thing.

As far as software developers having to release different binaries for different flavors of Linux, I really think that is a moot point. Here's why:
They can release the source (.tar.gz) package and possibly one or two of the popular binary packages (rpm, deb) IF THEY WANT. In the case that they don't release anything besides a source package the developers/maintainers of each independent distribution can create the packages themselves, which is often what happens. I mean, who better than the developers of the distribution to package something for their own distribution?
So, while the task of packaging has to be done by someone, at least that task does not have to be placed on the shoulders of the application/whatever developer(s).

This is NO proof. If the developers want to make packages for several distro's that's fine...

However.....

They don't HAVE to do it. They are not forced to do it and they don't need to do it. You see - all they have to do is just give the tarrball with the source code. That's the reason there are distro's and distro-builders. They do the job of fitting the application in the distro...

Yeah - and people complaining. There are always people complaining. I tell you a big secret - even developers of windows applications get complaints their software is not working. An that's only one platform so their should not be a problem at all (using your logic). Amazing huh?

Keep the application version up to date is also a job of the distro builders. Most times they will test the new version before bringing it to their platform. And that is the right way to do it. Why should I want the latest version right now if I can get a tested and packaged version a few day's later. What's the hurry?

Now when it comes to closed source code it is a bit of a different story. Most times the developers just give a standard package with pre-coded pieces inside. No source code here. Maya for Linux is a good example of this. Problem? ... No! You see - there is a common set of minimal parameters every Linux distro has. By building Maya against these common parameters the developers can be sure it works on most distro's. Maya works on Redhat, CentOS, Mandriva SUSE and a lot of other distro's. All use the same standard rpm package. No problem at all...

I agree a package manager would not work on a Windows platform, but it is doing a great job on a Linux platform.